Recommended Posts

Churchill had no qualms about making a deal with that devil Stalin. Communism was the totalitarian system of the Bolsheviks.
It is said that under Stalin they killed even more people than the Nazis. No need to quibble over a few million though... but hey!

This is all true - and yet runs deeper than that.

We must never ignore the fact that a Bolshevik society has (Talmudic) Jewish origins. These Jews have as their ultimate authority the Torah/Talmud. So back we are again to holy books - in the case of Judaism, we are talking about first the books of Moses (which is Hebraic mythology) and various others including books and even oral traditions.

Islam is all a product of this - it contains a Judaic substrate that has elements of a Christian heresy, such as Jesus/Isa will return to redeem humanity. That entire concept is a misunderstanding of the Judaic 'messiah' which is not a person, it is something that descends into man directly if he/she has done the necessary work within themselves.

This 'messiah' archetype got imbued into Jesus - which is a Greek name - and Islam under the name Isa Ibn Miriam. Technically speaking, both are idols (as is Muhammad) under the perspective of Judaism and therefor empires erected under such models of the masses imitating a concept man (Jesus/Muhammad) are false and thus subject to rulership of a higher authority. This grants Jews the power/ownership over them because they both break the laws handed to Moses, as Moses technically controlled both sides as well.

So Islam can be seen as the 'military arm' of Judaism - this is why it is calculated to label the Jews (themselves) as the enemy, because if they control both sides (ally/enemy) then they are its ruler. This is a Bolshevik system - those operating within it are at the mercy of two or more powers fighting for global dominance.

So that same communist element in Bolshevik also involves Islam, because Islam is a product of Judaism that also gave rise to it. In any event, the genocides that have occurred and may yet occur if people do not come together. This divide/conquer system is a rinse/repeat process and can be extended ad infinitum unless humanity 'wakes up' and deals with its source.

This must involve an attempt to reconcile the East / West under one system (which it technically always is as far as the source of creation is concerned) to systematically eliminate human suffering. The problem is when someone starts talking about a 'new world order' people will/have freak out and they start forming an 'enemy' in their minds that must be fought, and only chaos will result. This is actually related to the problem of the tree of knowledge of good/evil as eating from it (or dividing creation in two: good vs. evil) will only cause death - indeed this is true.

The problem is institutions such as Cathoicism/Christianity and Islam don't know (thus teach) their adherents such mysteries so that they make sense to people. We have people believing Adam and Eve were to physical people that were made by 'God' thousands of years ago. They thus brainwash their adherents with falsities for power/control, and we have two major global empires: Catholicism and Islamic - that are built on the structure of erecting an idol / central figure to emulate/imitate for a living, which causes rivalry and war between other empires utilizing the same (false) teachings.

I'm sorry to mix politics with religion but topics involving Islam will always do this because Islam is not a religion, it is a comprehensive political system, identical with any major empire. It essentially is a material/political empire that is based on endless conquest until the entire world is subdued.

Churchill had no qualms about making a deal with that devil Stalin. Communism was the totalitarian system of the Bolsheviks.
It is said that under Stalin they killed even more people than the Nazis. No need to quibble over a few million though... but hey!

Well, he did, actually. Churchill was of the "strangle Bolshevism in its cradle" mindset...he was VERY pro-intervention during the Russian Civil War.

At the end of WW2, the Allies had to come to the realization that the Red Army was freaking HUGE...and so talk of 'spheres of influence' was the order of the day. If Stalin was GIVEN Eastern Europe as his reward...perhaps he wouldn't want France and Spain...etc. I guess it worked...

Share on other sites

Well, he did, actually. Churchill was of the "strangle Bolshevism in its cradle" mindset...he was VERY pro-intervention during the Russian Civil War.

At the end of WW2, the Allies had to come to the realization that the Red Army was freaking HUGE...and so talk of 'spheres of influence' was the order of the day. If Stalin was GIVEN Eastern Europe as his reward...perhaps he wouldn't want France and Spain...etc. I guess it worked...

I objected to the claim that Churchill refused to adopt a totalitarian state, when in fact he had to choose from one of two totalitarian states, based on which one would be easier for the British to deal with afterwards. Yes it did work. Russia was contained, but maybe only by some good luck and post-war circumstances. But a reminder to our friends on the left that Russia was then, and still is now, a totalitarian state.

I objected to the claim that Churchill refused to adopt a totalitarian state, when in fact he had to choose from one of two totalitarian states, based on which one would be easier for the British to deal with afterwards. Yes it did work. Russia was contained, but maybe only by some good luck and post-war circumstances. But a reminder to our friends on the left that Russia was then, and still is now, a totalitarian state.

Modern Russia...while still a military dynamo...can not mobilize 100+ mechanized divisions onto the German border at a whim (with one Soviet division being bigger than the Canadian Army of today.) That's old Soviet Union stuff, thankfully.

But I'd rather the West deal with Russia than the Muslim world any day.

Share on other sites

This 'messiah' archetype got imbued into Jesus - which is a Greek name - and Islam under the name Isa Ibn Miriam. Technically speaking, both are idols (as is Muhammad) under the perspective of Judaism and therefor empires erected under such models of the masses imitating a concept man (Jesus/Muhammad) are false and thus subject to rulership of a higher authority. This grants Jews the power/ownership over them because they both break the laws handed to Moses, as Moses technically controlled both sides as well.

Maybe, but there are all sorts of different ways to interpret those symbols, not just the ones you have provided. To me they are all quite similar in terms of their religious symbols, but they are infused with different cultures. I'm no professor but the cultural influences are Greek, Hebrew or Judaic, and Arabic. So go pick your poison.

Quote

empires erected under such models of the masses imitating a concept man (Jesus/Muhammad) are false

Why shouldn't that list include Abraham as well, and perhaps Moses, and Solomon?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Maybe, but there are all sorts of different ways to interpret those symbols, not just the ones you have provided. To me they are all quite similar in terms of their religious symbols, but they are infused with different cultures. I'm no professor but the cultural influences are Greek, Hebrew or Judaic, and Arabic. So go pick your poison.

Why shouldn't that list include Abraham as well, and perhaps Moses, and Solomon?

To the first point - indeed there are different ways to interpret those symbols. But interpretation is not truth - there can only ever be one truth that is not bound to the influence of time whatsoever, hence the expression "truth is always in plain sight" because that's all can ever be present. This part is not conjecture - there is a cyclic process in nature that involves a coming into being, a sustenance, and a dissolution. This is the same cycle that is depicted by the Hindu pantheon Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva: Creator, Preserver, Destroyer respectively. These three elements are universal in all life - it doesn't matter if it is elemental, mineral, plant, animal, human etc. Therefor every mythological work attempts to describe the 'ultimate' that underlies this process of creation/destruction.

Technically speaking, this is the same as when the character of Jesus (whom Christianity/Islam say is a legitimate prophet) stated that a man must be "born again" - this after having undergone a first death. This is technically why Moses was shown the promised land but had to die before getting there.

This leads us into the last part of what you asked. These patriarchs were originally never intended to be understood as physical people that physically lived on the planet. They all represent the archetypes that progressively descend from ... what people in this day and age refer to as 'God' but is technically called the world of Aziluth by Moses according to his own Hebrew language (which is why I learned Hebrew to understand exactly what Moses was saying).

The books of Moses are written in such a way that Adam evolves his way into Christ 'the messiah' or Yoheshua. So each major patriarch such as Abram, Moses etc. represent the archetypes that fill a human being once they have reached those same initiations. Yoheshua (Christ) therefor states "before Abraham, I am" which is the name of 'God' given to Moses on Sinai: in Hebrew "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" or translated in English as "I am that I am" or "I become that I become".

So technically speaking, every man/woman born begins as Adam/Eve and the entire "path" involves walking in the shoes of each successive patriarch until one undergoes his/her own Christ which is the "only way" to Kether which is 'Father' on the tree of life.

However the Hebraic mythology is only one vehicle/device that one can use to understand his/her own being. The Hindu pantheon served the Hindus in the same way, as many of the characters are the same (ex. Brahma is Abrahm).

The only two idols upon which entire empires are built upon are Jesus (Catholicism and Christianities and there numerous denominations) and Muhammad (Islam and/or the Ottoman empire). Both of these empires are based on idolatrous models erected in the darkest ages of man. There is a cycle that lasts 25920 years called the Great Year wherein human consciousness rises into the 'golden' age and descends into the 'dark' age. Our last golden age was near 12 500 BCE and our last dark age was in 500 AD. Christianity/Islam both did rise within a few hundred years of this cycle that has steered the world toward materialism, empirism, degradation of women etc. and they are still standing today because adherents worship their respective idols.

Try telling a Muslim or a Christian their empire is built upon a purposefully idolatrous scheme to enslave them to the empire, and they will likely want to kill you - the Muhammadans especially. This is why Islam 'protects' the idol of Muhammad to such an extent as to legislate the death penalty for criticizing or depicting Muhammad - it's not preventing idolatry, it IS idolatry: protecting the idol at all cost.

This is why hundreds of millions of people are dead - books and idols. I only wish to see humanity outgrow such destructive beliefs as the Bible and/or Qur'an are perfect, inimitable etc. and that the conduct of Jesus and/or Muhammad are perfect and should be imitated/protected. This is all products of dark ages thinking that leads to human suffering and death.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

To the first point - indeed there are different ways to interpret those symbols. But interpretation is not truth - there can only ever be one truth that is not bound to the influence of time whatsoever, hence the expression "truth is always in plain sight" because that's all can ever be present. This part is not conjecture - there is a cyclic process in nature that involves a coming into being, a sustenance, and a dissolution. This is the same cycle that is depicted by the Hindu pantheon Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva: Creator, Preserver, Destroyer respectively. These three elements are universal in all life - it doesn't matter if it is elemental, mineral, plant, animal, human etc. Therefor every mythological work attempts to describe the 'ultimate' that underlies this process of creation/destruction.

Technically speaking, this is the same as when the character of Jesus (whom Christianity/Islam say is a legitimate prophet) stated that a man must be "born again" - this after having undergone a first death. This is technically why Moses was shown the promised land but had to die before getting there.

This leads us into the last part of what you asked. These patriarchs were originally never intended to be understood as physical people that physically lived on the planet. They all represent the archetypes that progressively descend from ... what people in this day and age refer to as 'God' but is technically called the world of Aziluth by Moses according to his own Hebrew language (which is why I learned Hebrew to understand exactly what Moses was saying).

The books of Moses are written in such a way that Adam evolves his way into Christ 'the messiah' or Yoheshua. So each major patriarch such as Abram, Moses etc. represent the archetypes that fill a human being once they have reached those same initiations. Yoheshua (Christ) therefor states "before Abraham, I am" which is the name of 'God' given to Moses on Sinai: in Hebrew "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" or translated in English as "I am that I am" or "I become that I become".

So technically speaking, every man/woman born begins as Adam/Eve and the entire "path" involves walking in the shoes of each successive patriarch until one undergoes his/her own Christ which is the "only way" to Kether which is 'Father' on the tree of life.

However the Hebraic mythology is only one vehicle/device that one can use to understand his/her own being. The Hindu pantheon served the Hindus in the same way, as many of the characters are the same (ex. Brahma is Abrahm).

The only two idols upon which entire empires are built upon are Jesus (Catholicism and Christianities and there numerous denominations) and Muhammad (Islam and/or the Ottoman empire). Both of these empires are based on idolatrous models erected in the darkest ages of man. There is a cycle that lasts 25920 years called the Great Year wherein human consciousness rises into the 'golden' age and descends into the 'dark' age. Our last golden age was near 12 500 BCE and our last dark age was in 500 AD. Christianity/Islam both did rise within a few hundred years of this cycle that has steered the world toward materialism, empirism, degradation of women etc. and they are still standing today because adherents worship their respective idols.

Try telling a Muslim or a Christian their empire is built upon a purposefully idolatrous scheme to enslave them to the empire, and they will likely want to kill you - the Muhammadans especially. This is why Islam 'protects' the idol of Muhammad to such an extent as to legislate the death penalty for criticizing or depicting Muhammad - it's not preventing idolatry, it IS idolatry: protecting the idol at all cost.

This is why hundreds of millions of people are dead - books and idols. I only wish to see humanity outgrow such destructive beliefs as the Bible and/or Qur'an are perfect, inimitable etc. and that the conduct of Jesus and/or Muhammad are perfect and should be imitated/protected. This is all products of dark ages thinking that leads to human suffering and death.

I think your analysis of fascism and its causes is a bit spurious. Fascist countries may or may not have a religious component. The Soviet Union was atheist totalitarian, a form of fascism. Hitler was an atheist, but he liked the Catholic idea of confession as a psychological salve and to use as a virtuous front, especially since some Nazi propaganda portrayed him as a crusader. Certainly theocracies tend towards fascism. Iran fits that category. The Middle East has multiple forms of it, from Saudi Arabia to Syria and as far west as Turkey. There seems to be a grey area as countries transition into fascism. The U.S. is arguably in that grey area right now. The pattern? Discrediting of journalists; scapegoating of one or more minority groups; supremacist language identifying one group (race, culture, country) as qualitatively better than others; cult of personality: supreme or inordinate power/authority and/or political credit is ascribed to one individual or party; use of propaganda (fake news); erosion of democratic institutions, including the politicization/influence peddling of the judicial branch and government departments; elimination of opposition parties or the disempowerment of opposition parties through measures such as jerry-mandering or media manipulation (including using government funds/resources to do this). This isn't an exhaustive list, just some key components.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think your analysis of fascism and its causes is a bit spurious. Fascist countries may or may not have a religious component. The Soviet Union was atheist totalitarian, a form of fascism. Hitler was an atheist, but he liked the Catholic idea of confession as a psychological salve and to use as a virtuous front, especially since some Nazi propaganda portrayed him as a crusader. Certainly theocracies tend towards fascism. Iran fits that category. The Middle East has multiple forms of it, from Saudi Arabia to Syria and as far west as Turkey. There seems to be a grey area as countries transition into fascism. The U.S. is arguably in that grey area right now. The pattern? Discrediting of journalists; scapegoating of one or more minority groups; supremacist language identifying one group (race, culture, country) as qualitatively better than others; cult of personality: supreme or inordinate power/authority and/or political credit is ascribed to one individual or party; use of propaganda (fake news); erosion of democratic institutions, including the politicization/influence peddling of the judicial branch and government departments; elimination of opposition parties or the disempowerment of opposition parties through measures such as jerry-mandering or media manipulation (including using government funds/resources to do this). This isn't an exhaustive list, just some key components.

Generally, fascism can be described as 'forcible suppression of opposition'. Examining the history of the Catholic Church and the present-day Islamic empire, one finds forcible suppression of opposition. Examine the Sharia anti-blasphemy laws of Islam and motion M-103 in Canada. These are examples of silencing opposition.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"Fascism" is an old term referencing collective strength of tribes by the common analogue that a single stick is weak and breakable but a collection of them are strong. Fascism was inclusive of any group, not just "national socialists" who demanded a coalition of disparate subgroups normally unassociated to each other, to recognize a common link regarding their native 'aboriginal' bond to the lands that now seem to be overtaken by outsiders. [Something that our own Multiculturalism is actually fostering within our own Aboriginals in Canada!!]

The problem is completely unrelated to Islam. You are merely ignorant of associating old terms that have derogatory meaning to some group you don't personally like without careful thought. All religions, whether moderately 'liberal' or extremely conservative and exclusive, are justifications for ACTION that many different political ideologies use to manipulate others. All you can say about Islamic forms of fascism can only relate to those particular EXCLUSIVE groups IN THE MIDDLE EAST who believe they have an aboriginal justified link to their land that they use religion to BIND their people. Fascism does not go beyond borders. So if one is Islamic but in North America, they likely lack any fascist interest unless they specifically exclude non-Arabic members. It then associates ones GENETICS to their RELIGION, not simply about all those of the same religion.

Hitler didn't appear to have specific religious ideals and their party favored only German Aboriginals but lacked a common historical CLEAR connection of all those that party wanted to unite. As such, they were 'fascist' but wanted to create a history of common link to justify a kind of religious bond of those deemed, "German". He also did not necessarily (originally) hate Jews outside of their apparent STRENGTH they seemed to have as a "nation" without borders that successfully operated by a form of bias of their own 'fascist' type of exclusion. As such, he targeted them for what they represented in 'competing' interest to creating a German-aboriginal identity. Many Jewish representatives also seemed to be associated with the penalties against Germany from WWI and in the economic downturn of the late 20s and 30s, made them stand out as relative 'winners' at the expense of the many who were losing.

Fascism and National Socialism are products of fear in uncertain times. National Socialism doesn't necessarily restrict itself to borders as plain-old 'fascism' that relates more specifically to linking the lands. So if an Islamic group outside of the traditional lands exist in bias of all others, they would be more specifically self-isolated in the U.S. to some racially identified group of the old world and EXCLUDE others from joining!! While such groups likely exist, they would not be of the average here and trivial UNLESS they are segregated FROM OUTSIDE. That is, your very accusations support a discrimination against Muslims here to which many of the youth who feel such will be more willing to isolate and become extreme because of your kind of attitude. Note that we have more Christian such groups here who isolate themselves with strong beliefs about their own genetic beliefs than Muslim ones. So being Muslim is NOT relevant to your fear. If you want to continue thinking of this as about religion, then you have to question all religions equally. None are immune to Nationalistic or Fascist beliefs.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"Fascism" is an old term referencing collective strength of tribes by the common analogue that a single stick is weak and breakable but a collection of them are strong. Fascism was inclusive of any group, not just "national socialists" who demanded a coalition of disparate subgroups normally unassociated to each other, to recognize a common link regarding their native 'aboriginal' bond to the lands that now seem to be overtaken by outsiders. [Something that our own Multiculturalism is actually fostering within our own Aboriginals in Canada!!]

The problem is completely unrelated to Islam. You are merely ignorant of associating old terms that have derogatory meaning to some group you don't personally like without careful thought. All religions, whether moderately 'liberal' or extremely conservative and exclusive, are justifications for ACTION that many different political ideologies use to manipulate others. All you can say about Islamic forms of fascism can only relate to those particular EXCLUSIVE groups IN THE MIDDLE EAST who believe they have an aboriginal justified link to their land that they use religion to BIND their people. Fascism does not go beyond borders. So if one is Islamic but in North America, they likely lack any fascist interest unless they specifically exclude non-Arabic members. It then associates ones GENETICS to their RELIGION, not simply about all those of the same religion.

I stopped reading at this point.

One of the main (and most destructive) characteristics of fascism is the forcible oppression of any/all opposition. Islam as a political entity employs the systematic degradation and subjugation of those who do not follow the faith. Motion M-103 in Canada is an example of Islam attempting to minimize opposition to it by calling for a 'whole of government approach' to tackling "Islamophobia" which is another fascist term used to label people that criticize Islam.

Islam is absolutely saturated with fascist ideology - that one cannot question the Qur'an, Muhammad, or Islam is inherently fascist.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

One of the main (and most destructive) characteristics of fascism is the forcible oppression of any/all opposition. Islam as a political entity employs the systematic degradation and subjugation of those who do not follow the faith. Motion M-103 in Canada is an example of Islam attempting to minimize opposition to it by calling for a 'whole of government approach' to tackling "Islamophobia" which is another fascist term used to label people that criticize Islam.

Islam is absolutely saturated with fascist ideology - that one cannot question the Qur'an, Muhammad, or Islam is inherently fascist.

"Islam" is a general CLASS word that just means any religion believing in something regarding the historical Muhammad and the Qu'ran. Similarly, "Christianity" is a general CLASS word that references any religion believing in something regarding the historical Jesus and its New Testament.

You have to be more specific or have to digress into a discussion of RELIGION itself. I think you are as ignorant as many who think "Christianity" means their own specific brand of Christianity they stupidly presume is universally agreed upon.

The problems about ANY political ideology relates to a belief about some GENETIC link to their political IDEOLOGY, not merely about some religious class. All religious classes have their degrees in similar distinctions of such beliefs. You definitely imply some particular favor of your own religion because you cannot argue against some specific class UNIQUELY without recognizing this relates to ALL religions. Religion, like 'culture', is used more often as a form of justification absent of LOGICAL reasons apart from equal consideration of others. That two or more ethnicities may have EQUAL rational justifications lacking 'fair' considerations, make using religion to justify why they act more 'fair' in their own eyes relative to others. So when certain groups associated to some common link believe they are suffering FOR genetic biases, they USE some cultural/religious reason to BIND each other with EMOTION where normal reasoning would not justify their distinct causes of suffering.

If you believe there is some problem with Islam, I challenge you to try to determine their underlying NON-religious causes. Only cultural-religious justifications HIDE the underlying problem and act as a means to UNITE others when they can't see why their conditions are harming certain pluralities over others. If everyone believes in the same 'game rules' but disagree with the arbitrary justification for their extreme losses (or extreme gains), they appeal to irrational religious justifications for why others are evil and they are themselves inherently 'angelic'.

What is your latent religious affiliation in contrast to your presumption about Islam?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The "pattern" was already set by FDR....over 70 years ago. Now hailed as one of America's greatest presidents.

In what sense was FDR a fascist? Yes his New Deal was a massive government intervention in the economy to reverse the Great Depression that provided a basic social safety net. His mobilization of the U.S. against Germany and Japan was a critical safeguard against fascism. FDR was still subject to elections and the system of checks and balances. He didn't try to manipulate the system to erode the powers of the opposition in Congress or other branches of government. No doubt war creates conditions where it may be necessary to temporarily suspend certain privileges. Those were unusual times that required major interventions to fight much greater evils. It was about defending freedom.

In what sense was FDR a fascist? Yes his New Deal was a massive government intervention in the economy to reverse the Great Depression that provided a basic social safety net. His mobilization of the U.S. against Germany and Japan was a critical safeguard against fascism. FDR was still subject to elections and the system of checks and balances. He didn't try to manipulate the system to erode the powers of the opposition in Congress or other branches of government. No doubt war creates conditions where it may be necessary to temporarily suspend certain privileges. Those were unusual times that required major interventions to fight much greater evils. It was about defending freedom.

You have answered your own question, and amazingly justify fascism to defend freedom.

FDR also interned American citizens and Japanese residents, gagged the press/media, and created the National Recovery Administration after Mussolini's example (struck down by the Supreme Court).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"Islam" is a general CLASS word that just means any religion believing in something regarding the historical Muhammad and the Qu'ran. Similarly, "Christianity" is a general CLASS word that references any religion believing in something regarding the historical Jesus and its New Testament.

You have to be more specific or have to digress into a discussion of RELIGION itself. I think you are as ignorant as many who think "Christianity" means their own specific brand of Christianity they stupidly presume is universally agreed upon.

The problems about ANY political ideology relates to a belief about some GENETIC link to their political IDEOLOGY, not merely about some religious class. All religious classes have their degrees in similar distinctions of such beliefs. You definitely imply some particular favor of your own religion because you cannot argue against some specific class UNIQUELY without recognizing this relates to ALL religions. Religion, like 'culture', is used more often as a form of justification absent of LOGICAL reasons apart from equal consideration of others. That two or more ethnicities may have EQUAL rational justifications lacking 'fair' considerations, make using religion to justify why they act more 'fair' in their own eyes relative to others. So when certain groups associated to some common link believe they are suffering FOR genetic biases, they USE some cultural/religious reason to BIND each other with EMOTION where normal reasoning would not justify their distinct causes of suffering.

If you believe there is some problem with Islam, I challenge you to try to determine their underlying NON-religious causes. Only cultural-religious justifications HIDE the underlying problem and act as a means to UNITE others when they can't see why their conditions are harming certain pluralities over others. If everyone believes in the same 'game rules' but disagree with the arbitrary justification for their extreme losses (or extreme gains), they appeal to irrational religious justifications for why others are evil and they are themselves inherently 'angelic'.

What is your latent religious affiliation in contrast to your presumption about Islam?

Now take the root of CLASS word: they are both empires based on a singular model that involves emulating the pattern of conduct and/or example of a man. Regarding Islam and Christianity this is Muhammad and Jesus respectively. This ties it all back into my original position: that these two empires are inherently idolatrous and are the sources of fascism. The fruits of fascism emerge from within the political realm but find their genesis from the religious one: Bolshevism being a product of Judaism is a prime example.

To your next comment: I understand the origins of Christianity before it was even Christianity. Christianity is a solar myth which attempts to describe the function of the sun on our solar system. The sun travels through twelve posts that we know as the calendar January-December. The Greeks had their names/deities for them, the Romans had their own names/deities for them, and Jesus is depicted surrounded by his twelve apostles. These are all solar myth stories that describe the function of the sun. Similarly, Islam is a lunar religion: the angel Gabriel is the moon and Islam utilizes the moon (NOT the sun as Westerners) to keep track of time. West and East are correlated to the functions of the sun and moon respectively: the Western world has its Solar Christianity, the East has its Lunar Islam. Both 'religions' are forgeries from prior ones and are inherently fascist because they both employ an idolatrous scheme.

To your next comment: I do not understand your use of GENETICS as if genetics are in any way relevant. I do acknowledge this applies to all religions - I am merely using Christianity and Islam as examples because they are the two biggest 'players' when we are talking about committing genocide. Christianity and Islam both spread by the sword. The difference with Islam is treating Islam as a 'religion' is wholly inappropriate and will likely cause confusion: Islam is NOT a religion. This is what the West needs to understand: the widely-distributed Qur'an is arranged out of order on purpose - it is to conceal the "pattern of conduct" of Muhammad such that the non-Muslims can not comprehend what is actually happening while Islam penetrates the social/political/economic layers of a non-Muslim nation which, by default in Islam, is hostile and in a state of war against Islam. There are two halves of the Qur'an: how to infiltrate, then how do commit genocide from within. It is a wholly political system - the religious component is given to everyone in order to bind them to the pattern of conduct (idol) that is Muhammad.

To your next comment and challenge: I accept and already provided the explanation above. Understanding Islam as a religion is erroneous - it is a political system through and through.

I have no religious affiliations: I have spent much time researching the history of Islam, the history of the Qur'an, the history of Muhammad, the origins of Christianity, the Hebrew language and reading Genesis in the proper Hebrew, and such things as astrology/astronomy, masonry, and listen often to lectures from various gnostic sources. I don't believe anything - what I know I know, what I do not know I do not know. I do not know many things about many topics, but one of the topics I'm prepared to defend is thus:

The problem of fascism leading to genocide is not new - it has existed on this planet for thousands of years. It is the same ongoing war being fought: humanity against itself. Christianity stole much of its esoteric teachings from earlier groups, then called them pagans/infidels/cannibals and slaughtered whoever did not confess Jesus as lord and savior. Islam does precisely the same: divides the world between "us" and "them" via the same believer/unbeliever mindset and use a system called 'Islam' to slowly mix in among the "unbelievers" and turn their own political/social/legal constructions against them until they are subdued and ultimately either they accept Islam or they are taxed/killed off (if a man of military age). The women and children are circulated to the human trafficking rings that Muhammad established in Islam. It has been running on this planet for 1400 years, and the Vatican has their own sexual depravity that is about to go mainstream involving little children.

And so this is why I emphasize that the problem is on BOTH sides: East and West. There is not a single contention I have against Islam that I couldn't likewise make against Christianity. They are both inherently idolatrous and just as much a problem as the other.

I would stand to agree with Muslims when they claim that the Bible is obviously adulterated and the Vatican is essentially the headquarters for Western pedophilia. I agree that they have preserved theirs much better. However, their principle claim is that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of the creator of the universe is patently false, and this is what the Muslim believes as the center of his/her faith which is all feeding into the political system that is Islam which leads to... fascism and genocide, beginning with Jews and moving on to Christians/Whites.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Now take the root of CLASS word: they are both empires based on a singular model that involves emulating the pattern of conduct and/or example of a man. Regarding Islam and Christianity this is Muhammad and Jesus respectively. This ties it all back into my original position: that these two empires are inherently idolatrous and are the sources of fascism. The fruits of fascism emerge from within the political realm but find their genesis from the religious one: Bolshevism being a product of Judaism is a prime example.

Everyone takes historical figures as 'models' for their philosophy. What usually matters is the content but often degrades into idol/hero worship inappropriate to the initial movements based on reality. I already hold that religion is a secondary reflection of a secular reality based on political/economic reality. Religious devolution from original secular reality is what needs to be challenged against the religious, not a mere accusation against them for being 'evil' by some external standard we might see from outside of them. That is, you can accuse the religious of being intolerant by being 'fascist' or some other derogatory label and it will only be ignored when the meanings of the words are only being heard as "you're evil!" without proving they have some hypocritical understanding of themselves by their understanding of 'evil'.

The link to 'fascism' is not relevant because ALL societies evolve through the stages of tribal collectivism and is originally NOT a bad thing by its original meaning. That the word 'fascism' has become a derogatory descriptive word is only due to the history of those actual past governments that have LABELLED themselves as 'fascism' by an original positive interpretation by themselves. If some party labelled themselves as "the Good Party", and they turned out to be bad, the term "Good" only becomes derogatory relative to how that historical party becomes despised later. Similarly, the term, "fascist" was used to describe something originally ideal that many relate to positively by meaning.

But this perversion of meaning is no different than the religious who have contorted the original history of something into something 'idolized' without recognizing its original meaning. So you can't accuse them of something by a bad label without expanding on what you understand the meaning is with respect to their reality.

How is a religion, like Islam, to you, acting 'fascist'? Are you expanding your meaning to ALL of the class of Muslims even if they ,may promote their religion to non-Arabic people? If so, they are not 'fascist' by meaning. One who is Israeli who may believe that one who is Jewish AND has family ancestral roots that link them to Palestine are more 'fascist' in this meaning if they exclude those without Semitic roots, for instance. So people may agree that 'fascism' is not something they favor but disagree to your link of Islam uniquely to be fascist.

The root of fascism is about favoring ones' family (genetic) heritage with respect to some place that ignores whether the families collecting relate to anything more than that relationship. It is bad when it fosters hatred against immigrants with extreme prejudice through behaviors like extermination (genocide) or other less but relatively extreme abuse indirectly (like refusing them passage or a right to eat, for instance). While many Islamic groups may favor this, you need to note that it is not intrinsic specifically about Islam but to ALL cultures/religions.

I'm just not getting why you are focusing on Islam when this would be interpreted as intolerant of 'outsiders' in the very way that fascism often treats outsiders uniquely as being bad without pointing out where that kind of behavior is also bad within your own 'inside' groups too?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The women and children are circulated to the human trafficking rings that Muhammad established in Islam. It has been running on this planet for 1400 years, and the Vatican has their own sexual depravity that is about to go mainstream involving little children.

How you are linking 'human trafficking' to this is weird. This term is another one that has evolved to something unrelated to its original meaning. The term is specifically meaning the TRADE of HUMANS, such as slavery, with a specific reference to those being traded usually for prostitution of people against their will. How is this even generally accepted by any collection of people for any duration anywhere? [Human Trafficking is NOT as prevalent as some even presume! It cannot persist long without being exposed because even in prisons, rapists of the innocent are not perceived with open arms.]

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

#1. Everyone takes historical figures as 'models' for their philosophy. What usually matters is the content but often degrades into idol/hero worship inappropriate to the initial movements based on reality. I already hold that religion is a secondary reflection of a secular reality based on political/economic reality. Religious devolution from original secular reality is what needs to be challenged against the religious, not a mere accusation against them for being 'evil' by some external standard we might see from outside of them. That is, you can accuse the religious of being intolerant by being 'fascist' or some other derogatory label and it will only be ignored when the meanings of the words are only being heard as "you're evil!" without proving they have some hypocritical understanding of themselves by their understanding of 'evil'.

#2. The link to 'fascism' is not relevant because ALL societies evolve through the stages of tribal collectivism and is originally NOT a bad thing by its original meaning. That the word 'fascism' has become a derogatory descriptive word is only due to the history of those actual past governments that have LABELLED themselves as 'fascism' by an original positive interpretation by themselves. If some party labelled themselves as "the Good Party", and they turned out to be bad, the term "Good" only becomes derogatory relative to how that historical party becomes despised later. Similarly, the term, "fascist" was used to describe something originally ideal that many relate to positively by meaning.

#3. But this perversion of meaning is no different than the religious who have contorted the original history of something into something 'idolized' without recognizing its original meaning. So you can't accuse them of something by a bad label without expanding on what you understand the meaning is with respect to their reality.

#4. How is a religion, like Islam, to you, acting 'fascist'? Are you expanding your meaning to ALL of the class of Muslims even if they ,may promote their religion to non-Arabic people? If so, they are not 'fascist' by meaning. One who is Israeli who may believe that one who is Jewish AND has family ancestral roots that link them to Palestine are more 'fascist' in this meaning if they exclude those without Semitic roots, for instance. So people may agree that 'fascism' is not something they favor but disagree to your link of Islam uniquely to be fascist.

#5. The root of fascism is about favoring ones' family (genetic) heritage with respect to some place that ignores whether the families collecting relate to anything more than that relationship. It is bad when it fosters hatred against immigrants with extreme prejudice through behaviors like extermination (genocide) or other less but relatively extreme abuse indirectly (like refusing them passage or a right to eat, for instance). While many Islamic groups may favor this, you need to note that it is not intrinsic specifically about Islam but to ALL cultures/religions.

#6. I'm just not getting why you are focusing on Islam when this would be interpreted as intolerant of 'outsiders' in the very way that fascism often treats outsiders uniquely as being bad without pointing out where that kind of behavior is also bad within your own 'inside' groups too?

#1. Indeed the problem does come to the understanding of evil. In fact, the very first story in the first book of Moses (a figure whom is regarded as a true prophet of the biblical God of Abraham and/or Allah) deals with the problem of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and how it surely leads to death. The problem enters with the religious institutions established on committing this very act: labeling the 'other' as evil. When I use the term fascism as it relates to religions such as Christianity and Islam, it is closely related to the problem of evil. These are the people projecting their own 'evil' outward at others based on the doctrines of their respective authorities. I am not here to call people evil - neither Christian nor Muslim nor secularist - but rather identify that their idolatrous institutions are based on a fascism scheme by default. This gives rise to state-sanctioned anti-blasphemy laws such as one can not criticize Muhammad, Qur'an or Islam which is totalitarianism.

#2. The understanding of fascism need not go any further than any state-sanctioned and enforced laws relating to the suppression of opposition voices. That is what leads to the collapse of any 'state' into dictatorship that carrier out the totalitarian goal(s) which, with regards to Islam, happens to be the genocide of the Jews, then Christians, then everyone else. Is it really a coincidence that within a generation or so there was a genocide of Jews that took place? Do we see the link between religious ambition and political dictatorship yet? Islam is designed as a political force, not a religious one. Please understand the life of the historical Muhammad to understand how he went from preacher to warlord. It's the path of a dictator - and Muslims imitate his pattern of conduct for a living. Problem? Fascism must be viewed in this light - it is directly related to Muhammad.

#3. See two responses above for connection.

#4. See two responses above. I did not claim Islam is uniquely fascist, as Roman Catholicism most certainly was: state-sanctioned belief that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Muhammad is the final messenger of Allah and must be emulated for a living. These are both fascist institutions that find their roots in the dark ages of man. I therefor do not claim that Islam is uniquely 'the' source of fascism, but rather Islam is rooted in fascism.

#5. You are bringing genetics into this again. This has absolutely nothing to do with genetics. In fact, Muhammad belonged to the Quraysh tribe that ended up wiping all other tribes out and formed the basis of Islam. So if you are arguing that "root of fascism is about favoring ones' family (genetic) heritage with respect to some place that" then Muhammad and Islam has a purely fascist root, by your own definition. Once again, one must understand the history of the Quraysh tribe and Muhammad's rise to power.

#6. I don't care how it is "interpreted" by anyone. Truth is not about interpretation; truth is about truth. If people are insecure about the truth, they are the ones who become violent. Systems such as Islam use state-sanctioned (totalitarian) suppression and subjugation of freedom of speech/expression especially as it relates to Islam (the state) itself. Forcible suppression of this nature is inherently fascist.

The reason I am speaking about this is because presently Islam has 'subdued' almost all Western nations (first through the UN wherein they tried to make it a global law that Islam/Qur'an/Muhammad may not be criticized) and is actively collecting 'jizyah' taxes - essentially draining Western economies and feeding this money toward jihad, the cause of Islam, which is totalitarian control of the entire planet under a Sharia state. That will lead to the successive rise of powerful dictators that will routinely order genocides against anyone that opposes them and their 'cause of Allah' just as Muhammad did. Let us not forget, Muhammad committed genocide against Jews in exactly the same way Hitler did. The entire framework of Islam is to produce a genocide machine for Jews until they are all gone.

This is the same battle humanity fought against Hitler - a powerful dictator that slaughtered Jews - but this time it is on a much bigger scale yet, and the Liberal/Democratic parties are actually in favor of this (even if they don't realize it). That's why Justin Trudeau is absolutely aiding and abetting a hostile foreign entity by opening the borders and his 'connections' to Ali Khan etc. It's all connected but too many people can not see the 40 000ft. view.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

How you are linking 'human trafficking' to this is weird. This term is another one that has evolved to something unrelated to its original meaning. The term is specifically meaning the TRADE of HUMANS, such as slavery, with a specific reference to those being traded usually for prostitution of people against their will. How is this even generally accepted by any collection of people for any duration anywhere? [Human Trafficking is NOT as prevalent as some even presume! It cannot persist long without being exposed because even in prisons, rapists of the innocent are not perceived with open arms.]

It is not weird - I have read the history of Muhammad's political/military career. He established human trafficking 'businesses' (Muhammad was a merchant) that funded the expansion and/or jihad.

Men of military age were beheaded, women and children were absorbed into the empire and 'given' to front-line jihadists to be used as their personal sex slaves. This is why in Islam it is legislated that a woman may not refuse her husband sex unless she is ill or menstruating. This legislation is pro-slavery (as Islam is absolutely pro-slavery) and encourages over-breeding to produce migrants that perform the hijrah (essentially invasion) and start draining resources from within non-Muslims nations.

The wealthy business owners, lawyers, bankers, politicians etc. pay into these human trafficking rings by 'buying' sex slaves that can be used at their own discretion. Unfortunately, because such things are censored, the mainstream public does not even know about these underground network - but they are not only vast, they are multi-billion dollar establishments.

Human trafficking is absolutely tied to Islam, because the whole structure of Islam RELIES on taking income from such trafficking.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think there's too much focus here on the relationship between religion and fascism. Most religions tend to amount to closed ideologies and where monopolistic religious ideology is combined with state control, religion and fascism are entirely compatible. In a secular state, or even one governed by the philosophy of strict separation of church and state, this cannot happen. Corporate capitalism, a more modern institution, is also entirely compatible with fascism, and more insidiously so. It's been argued that a fascist regime can more efficiently accommodate capitalism than can a democratic one. Trudeau is certainly a fan of the ability of at least one prominent undemocratic regime to efficiently get things done in the absence of the inconvenient need to obtain voter consent. The new globalism of the past three decades seeks to undermine nation-based democratic institutions and replace them with unaccountable corporate-focused institutions. This is the risk we in the West need to focus on. Yes, keep an eye on religion, which can be a corrosive force, but we must pay attention to the institutional risk posed by institutional globalization. Islam is a distraction.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

#1. Indeed the problem does come to the understanding of evil. In fact, the very first story in the first book of Moses (a figure whom is regarded as a true prophet of the biblical God of Abraham and/or Allah) deals with the problem of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and how it surely leads to death. The problem enters with the religious institutions established on committing this very act: labeling the 'other' as evil. When I use the term fascism as it relates to religions such as Christianity and Islam, it is closely related to the problem of evil. These are the people projecting their own 'evil' outward at others based on the doctrines of their respective authorities. I am not here to call people evil - neither Christian nor Muslim nor secularist - but rather identify that their idolatrous institutions are based on a fascism scheme by default. This gives rise to state-sanctioned anti-blasphemy laws such as one can not criticize Muhammad, Qur'an or Islam which is totalitarianism.

I'm confused at your point. In the ancient times as they were transitioning from hunting and gathering, they had to meet together and negotiate a means of creating a civilization. Thus the 'tribal' concept of fascism was originally a call to agree that each of the DIFFERENT tribes shared something in common even though they did not necessarily agree on which truth about Nature itself presided. As such, they needed a means to agree not to fight with each other on the bases that "together,...they hold strong; but that divided they fall." That is ALL that the original 'fascist' concept referred to. By putting aside their differences but focusing on their common link to the LAND, they agreed that at least for those conspiring, they agreed they had a right to lands in times where relative outsiders where taking over. This theme is common to people regardless of having any particular religion or none at all.

If you look at HOW they used some common theme by creating or recreating some myth about their roots to the land by some 'favor of the gods', this was their means of adding emotive force to their coalition. This is what those like the National Socialists recognized was powerful. The use of declaring some link to Nature ("God" == "Nature" to them), they wanted to establish a justifiable reason to take back their lands when foreign powers were utilizing the ignorance of the tribes to claim land, just as the North American Natives were treated when Europeans came over. That is, the religion and tribalism used to bring people together is an accident due to the traditional peoples losing power in lands they were from.

You need to first recognize the actual problem before you can attack them. "Fascism" isn't a cause but a reflected result of things like poverty of a larger subset of people in a place their ancestors originally came from. As such you need to focus on solutions to the FACTS, not the emotive religious effects that follow because of it.

5 hours ago, 9-18-1 said:

#2. The understanding of fascism need not go any further than any state-sanctioned and enforced laws relating to the suppression of opposition voices. That is what leads to the collapse of any 'state' into dictatorship that carrier out the totalitarian goal(s) which, with regards to Islam, happens to be the genocide of the Jews, then Christians, then everyone else. Is it really a coincidence that within a generation or so there was a genocide of Jews that took place? Do we see the link between religious ambition and political dictatorship yet? Islam is designed as a political force, not a religious one. Please understand the life of the historical Muhammad to understand how he went from preacher to warlord. It's the path of a dictator - and Muslims imitate his pattern of conduct for a living. Problem? Fascism must be viewed in this light - it is directly related to Muhammad.

This is NOT unique to fascism but to most political groups. When a relative 'native' population becomes isolated and trapped AS OUTSIDERS in their own lands, by virtue of becoming impoverished at the expense of initially welcoming outsiders, the result is for those 'tribes' (as 'floaters' upon the land) rebel with reason. The end result is some movement where some FORCE is used to an unusual extreme to overthrow those in power. Muhammad was a war hero but at the time created a coalition of disparate groups of a similar condition. The 'religion' came AFTER the change and is more often amplified with reverence to the heroes who brought this about long after those heroes die. That is, the 'religion' of Islam was not of Muhammad necessarily but of a latter community reflecting on who brought them 'peace'.

Sanctioned violence comes from more than one side. The extremes of the desperate only appear relatively more vile by those presently in power who by default have the bigger guns and so don't NEED to appear this way. But it doesn't mean they aren't as 'evil' in their own behavior.

6 hours ago, 9-18-1 said:

#5. You are bringing genetics into this again. This has absolutely nothing to do with genetics. In fact, Muhammad belonged to the Quraysh tribe that ended up wiping all other tribes out and formed the basis of Islam. So if you are arguing that "root of fascism is about favoring ones' family (genetic) heritage with respect to some place that" then Muhammad and Islam has a purely fascist root, by your own definition. Once again, one must understand the history of the Quraysh tribe and Muhammad's rise to power.

"Fascism" and MORE relevantly, "National Socialism", is specifically about connecting the tribes to a common myth about who they are with respect to the land. They do this by focusing on their genetic roots because only genetics is the more apparent common link of those tribes. Islam is not even a good example of this in its origin. They use a religious means to do this because it says that Nature (via God) dictates that they are somehow MORE justly the rightful owners of the land. As such, this gets used to both get others to join in and to find emotional power to fight....especially when they are by default 'weak' and divided normally.

["National Socialism" meant to favor 'socially' those 'Native' to a region and to their common genetic group wherever they expand to with exception. So one who is German by Hitler's concept is also extended to Germans even wherever they can be empowered to conquer. So they were a tad bit more 'racist' than the Italian form of Nationalism. They borrowed this concept from their beliefs of why the Jews themselves were strong and exclusive wherever they existed such as their 'Diaspora'. Our North American Natives are being oddly encouraged to STRENGTHEN this idea of themselves without those encouraging this to recognize what WILL be a problem in some future should they collectively take a stance with sufficient power.]